Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGENCY LAKEVIEW - PDP & APU - PDP120013 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (17)2. The proposed density of the Regency Lakeview project is consistent with MMN zoning standards. In their APPU (page 3, under 1.3.4), they note that an appropriate transition to R-L would be LMN- type density. So why are they proposing MMN density? Indeed in their submittal letter, they clearly expect to develop to MMN standards (see the "Multi -Family Standards" section). 3. In the APPU (page 4 paragraph 1), Regency asserts that they've worked with the City, church and neighbors to "design a project that complies with the applicable R-L standards." The density and height of buildings do not at all comply with R-L standards. All conversations about R-L type of density that I've had with Regency or the church officials have been dismissed out -of -hand, due to little current demand for such kinds of development. 4. On page 5 of the APPU, paragraph (3) sub paragraph 3, they state that the "Project will improve the environmental condition of the site by reducing the amount of blue grass (sic) and consequently the amount of water needed for irrigation." What is not mentioned that the grass is replaced with parking spaces for 316 automobiles, each emitting carbon monoxide and dripping oils and antifreeze onto the ground, which will end up in the detention pond and eventually in Lake Sherwood! Really, would anybody seriously characterize replacing grass with asphalt as an environmental benefit? 5. On page 6 of the APPU, first bullet point, they state that the site will increase opportunities to use alternative modes of transport (due to infill site location). This benefit is there no matter the level of density; the project itself does not encourage alternative transportation use. And suggesting in the next paragraph that people will take their "large item" castoffs to the church for use at their food and clothing bank instead of tossing them in the dumpster (thereby improving public health) is at best speculation. The church's clothing bank has very limited hours for receiving donations. 6. In the Environmental Health Principles and policies, Regency describes the proposed housing as "...luxury rental housing...," and that recent retirees are a target market (submittal letter page 2), yet there are no elevators in these buildings! How luxury can it be if one has to schlep up two flights of stairs? Will retirees really be attracted to such a property? 7. In the same document, under Policy LIV 26.4, they state that the project is "served by major bus routes, the ease of alternate modes of transportation increases the use of such modes." A search of the Transfort website shows that there is no bus service at all along Drake Road, and Lemay is served by only one bus each hour going north and south (route 5) and only six days a week. This hardly describes a "major bus route"!! Sure these are small points, but they point to a larger issue: if Regency will mislead you/us with these statements, how else might they be misleading us about things we don't think to look for? If there were a crying need for apartments in town and no other suitably -zoned parcels available, then perhaps this could be considered in good faith. But there are many new apartment projects being proposed, and many are in appropriately -zoned locations. I ask the City and P&Z board to please protect our neighborhood and the living standards we've come to know over the past 30+ years by rejecting this particular APU, and requiring appropriate density for any future proposals for this parcel. Sincerely, Mark Kenning 2613 Dorado Court 970.204.4352 0 June 11., 2012 TO: Mr. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, City of Fort Collins Ms Laurie Kadrich, Staff support for Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) Ms. Lisa Poppaw; City Council Re: Regency Lakeview — proposed project near Drake and Lemay Hi Ted, Lisa and Laurie! Thank you for encouraging citizen input. Laurie, can you please see that this letter gets into the proper files for the P&Z people? I am writing in opposition to the latest proposal submitted by Regency for development of 11 acres east of the Christ Center Community Church. I appreciate that Ted shared their submittal documents with the neighbors near the project; I've reviewed those documents as well as the minutes from the October 15, 2009 P&Z meeting. You might recall that at that meeting, the P&Z board considered a Church request that their entire_ parcel be rezoned to LMN. After a lengthy discussion but before a vote, the Church withdrew their request.. Let me be clear that I object to the proposed development based on its density. 175 units on 11 acres (essentially 9 acres since two acres must be devoted to a detention pond) is a jarring contrast in density crammed in next to the adjoining R-L (3-4 dwellings per acre) neighborhoods. It can't help but negatively impact the existing residents. While I wish the field could remain a small park, I recognize that development is going to happen. I respectfully ask that the City protect long-time adjacent neighbors by holding the church and any partners they may contract with to the promises - expressed and implied - that have been made to neighbors over the years. We've understood that R-L zoning was in place, and (grudgingly) accept that development within those standards is now inevitable. As to this particular proposal, I ask that the City and P&Z consider these points: 1) This development is NOT at an arterial intersection. It borders only on Drake - not Lemay - and the bulk of the development does not even front on Drake. The church retains ownership and control of all land fronting on Lemay and the majority of the land fronting on Drake. To characterize Regency as a development at a major arterial intersection in order to justify density consistent with a theoretical MMN zoning that the entire site might have is erroneous. 2) Regency implies that the parcel retained its RL zoning due to a "unfortunate oversight" (final paragraph, submittal letter) on the part of the church administration and the City. In fact, Ted Shepard explained to the P&Z board at their October 2009 meeting that an informed decision was made by the Church at that time to retain the RL zoning (see page 10 of the minutes). To suggest that Regency is helping to rectify a past mistake is plain not true. Were the entire parcel were being developed (and rezoned MMN), it's likely that any approved plan would have the higher density buildings set closer to the arterial streets, with lower density dwellings transitioning to the existing neighborhoods. Thus it makes sense that any development of this particular infill parcel should follow that pattern, and include only lower -density housing adjacent to the single- family neighborhoods that border it. 3) I've successfully run a sales business for nearly 17 years. We salesmen often use puffery to make our products sound wonderful — and that's OK, provided we don't use it to obscure facts. I believe that the Regency submittal contains puffery that obscures facts: 1. In their Petition for Addition of Permitted Use (APPU), Regency states that the P&Z board supported more intense uses for this parcel. If one carefully reads the minutes of the 10/15/09 meeting, what little support they expressed for intense development was in context of redeveloping the entire 23 acre parcel. They were much more protective (pages 10 and 11) of the eastern portion that Regency has proposed developing.